Roman cavalry (Latin: equites Romani) refers to the horse-mounted forces of the Roman army throughout the regal, republican, and imperial eras.
In the regal era, the Roman cavalry was a group of 300 soldiers called celeres, tasked with guarding the Kings of Rome. Later their numbers were doubled to 600, then possibly 1,800. All of the cavalrymen were patricians. In the republican era, the general name for the cavalry was equites and these united consisted of the equestrian class and the first class, with a group of 300 cavalrymen in every legion. They were divided into 10 groups of 30 men. Each group elected three leaders known as decuriones. Later the Roman cavalry stopped using Roman citizens as cavalrymen and relied on Auxilia and foreign recruits.
Roman cavalrymen wore a Corinthian helmet, bronze chestplate, and bronze greaves. Later mail was adopted into the army. Their arms included a lance (lancea), a long sword (spatha), and a short throwing spear.
Historians such as Philip Sidnell argue that the Roman cavalry was a crucial part of the republican army. However, other historians bring up defeats such as Cannae and Trebia as evidence against this claim. Cavalry tactics included fighting the enemy cavalry first, then attacking the enemy army from multiple directions to distract the commander and break their defensive line. In the Late Empire light cavalry and mounted archers were used for skirmishing. The traditional Roman cavalry rode small pony-sized horses around 14 hands high.
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).Livy I.36 According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12 centuriae of cavalry,Livy I.43 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).Based on figures in Polybius II.24 This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong (two legions with 300 horse each).Cornell (1995) 193
The royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of the patricians (patricii), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary,Cornell (1995) 245 although some consider the supporting evidence tenuous.Cornell (1995) 250. Since the cavalry was probably a patrician preserve, 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.Cornell (1995) 238, 446 note 32 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 six 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.Online 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Equites
According to the ancient Greek historian Polybius, whose Histories (written ca. 140s BC) is the earliest substantial extant account of the Republic, Roman cavalry was originally unarmoured, wearing only a tunic and armed with a light spear and ox-hide shield which were of low quality and quickly deteriorated in action.Polybius I.
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)
Recruitment
As their name implies, the equites were required to serve up to 10 years of service in the cavalry between the ages of 17 and 46. 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.Goldsworthy (2000) 49 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 (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.Goldsworthy (2003) 27 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 sixteen for the infantry.Polybius II.19, 39
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.Polybius VI.20 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.Polybius VI.25 From the available evidence, the cavalry of a Polybian legion (and presumably confederate cavalry also) was armoured and specialised in the shock charge.Sidnell (2006) 152
Equipment
The majority of pictorial evidence for the equipment of Republican cavalry is from stone monuments, such as mausoleums, columns, arches and Roman military tombstones. The earliest extant representations of Roman cavalrymen are found on a few coins dated to the 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 armour 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 armour (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,Polybius VI.23 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.Sidnell (2006) 161 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. It was of the "four horn" design, first used by the Romans as early as the 1st century BC.Gawronski R. S. "Some Remarks on the Origins and Construction of the Roman Military Saddle." Archeologia (Archaeology) 2004, vol: 55, pages: 31-40 Neither design had stirrups. Beatie, Russel H. Saddles, University of Oklahoma Press, 1981 , , 9780806115849 P.18-22
Similar uncertainty exists 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) and the related question of whether they carried long lances or shorter spears, the doru mentioned by Polybius.Sidnell (2006)160 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 armour 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 armour 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 infantrySidnell (1995) 161. 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 had no 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 (2006) 150 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.Plutarch Pyrrhus 15-17
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 Italy (218-6 BC), which were only rendered 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 melee cavalry 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 skilful 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 Italo-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.