Cavalry in Rome

[HolisticGod]

All,

Depends upon the region.

One of the first tests of Rome will be the distinction between Western and Eastern cavalry. Eastern cavalry should either be more powerful than infantry and Western less or cavalry should be more economical and plentiful in the East.

 

[Snall]

I def think it should be cheaper, not better.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

I def think it should be cheaper, not better.

I, OTOH, would say the opposite. Hetairoi aren't regardes as some of the best cavalry in the ancient world because of their huge numbers. Alexander had less than 2000 when he crossed the Hellespont.

In fact, I think successors, Parthians and Roxolani (was there a Scyth faction too?) could even pay more for their heavier cavalry.

All,

Depends upon the region.

One of the first tests of Rome will be the distinction between Western and Eastern cavalry. Eastern cavalry should either be more powerful than infantry and Western less or cavalry should be more economical and plentiful in the East.

Well, powerful is such a difficult term. I don't think any nation/people/realm with the possible exception of steppe peoples had means to put enough sufficiently heavy cavalry on the field to succesfully ride down opposing heavy infantry with frontal charges.

Hopefully all cavalry will be extremely handy for a commander who knows he's way around the battlefield. One could say that because of their superior mobility, cavalry have more potential capability to cause decisive outcomes than infantry.

 

[unmerged(68442)]

Speaking for Parthia eastern cavalry was just as good as western (Macedonian) if not better historically the Parthians at game start go on to destroy the Seleukid Empire and beat off every Roman invasion (humiliating Marcus Antonius) until Trajan but he went an died.

Their army was based around the fact that with so many enemies on all sides nomadic raiders along their whole northern border Greeks and later Romans to the west with Indians to the east they needed to be mobile force that could respond to threats quickly, this lead to an army based predominantly around mounted troops the majority of which where horse archers but with a proportion of noble super heavy cavalry heavier than anything in the west and copied by the west.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Speaking for Parthia eastern cavalry was just as good as western (Macedonian) if not better historically the Parthians at game start go on to destroy the Seleukid Empire and beat off every Roman invasion (humiliating Marcus Antonius) until Trajan but he went an died.

Their army was based around the fact that with so many enemies on all sides nomadic raiders along their whole northern border Greeks and later Romans to the west with Indians to the east they needed to be mobile force that could respond to threats quickly, this lead to an army based predominantly around mounted troops the majority of which where horse archers but with a proportion of noble super heavy cavalry heavier than anything in the west and copied by the west.

"Parthian" endevors to overtake the Seleucids didn't really start until more than 40 years into the game. At the start, they were just some of those nomadic raiders living on the steppe, against which the new persian empire that they founded had to fight.

Nor do I agree that Romans strictly "copied" the ideas of heavy cavalry from the Parthians. The various sarmatian peoples, against which they fought in Dacian wars (who would have fought in very similar manner to Parthian nobility), were equally if not more influental. For example, the famous two handed cavalry spear known as kontos was most likely a sarmatian invention. It didn't really appear in this game's time period, however.

 

[unmerged(68442)]

"Parthian" endevors to overtake the Seleucids didn't really start until more than 40 years into the game. At the start, they were just some of those nomadic raiders living on the steppe, against which the new persian empire that they founded had to fight.

Nor do I agree that Romans strictly "copied" the ideas of heavy cavalry from the Parthians. The various sarmatian peoples, against which they fought in Dacian wars (who would have fought in very similar manner to Parthian nobility), were equally if not more influental.

Yes they where nomadic raiders but it was those nomads that introduced the cataphract to the west, first to Alexander and the Macedonian's then to the Roman's though the Macedonian successors mainly the Seleukids who adopted cataphract tactics themselves, most of the Seleukid cataphract force where bribed by Pompey during his conquest of the east.

Athough I have no doubt your right the Romans learnt a lot of practical knowledge from the Dacian wars when actually creating a standing heavy cavalry force of the own.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm in no way disagreeing with you in that the noble cavalry types of the steppe dwellers were the ultimate heavy cavalry in this game's times.

Also, the cavalry arm of successor states was in a point from where it could only go downwards in quality.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Pax Romana had a bonus called "cavalry advantage", which it would confer to the side with the most cavalry in a battle, similarly to how Vicky handled artillery (with a named "artillery advantage, no less).

However, it seems that Paradox has abandoned the concept of named battlefield modifiers since EU3.

 

[unmerged(68442)]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm in no way disagreeing with you in that the noble cavalry types of the steppe dwellers were the ultimate heavy cavalry in this game's times.

Also, the cavalry arm of successor states was in a point from where it could only go downwards in quality.

Maybe IRL but in game I plan on building them right back up look out Seleukos and Ptolemaios I'm after you and your heirs! I'll solve the political disunity of the successors with a Kopis to ya face

 

[Kanaric]

The combat system in this game is probably completely different since they have all kinds of types of units... i'll bet that you can't beat people with one dimentional armies. It might be more like Hearts of Iron 2 so cavalry wont "rule" and they are probably requiring tons of resources like Tanks did to operate in HOI2.

 

[unmerged(10773)]

Well, I think that every troop type has it own purpose EU:R. Light infantry as skirmishers, heavy infantry as the spine of your forces, archers to rain arrows at your enemy behind heavy infantry, cavalry to protect flanks and to flank enemy, horse archers to decimate pretty everethyng if the foe doesn't have cavalry to run them down and finally elephants to cause mass destruction .

So using a mix of all units will be much more important than in earlier EU's or crusader kings where you can win by having bigger force.

elephants are actually not very effective on the battlefield... they panic very
easily... and when they do they run run in a random direction... if towards your own formation... well you get the idea.

They might have a psychological effect on the enemy not used to seeing elepfants though.

 

[unmerged(10773)]

I disagree heavy cavalry was the decisive arm of Philip II / Alexander the Great's army which is before game start, the Parthian's also have an elite heavy cavalry force that set the Romans packing numerous times

yes the romans sometimes got beaten by cav armies. However they did
not equip or train their infantry specifically to fight against charging cav. If so they would have given them long spears/pikes.
the large shields carried by the roman inf did offer some defence against horsearchers though.

 

[Jolt]

I disagree heavy cavalry was the decisive arm of Philip II / Alexander the Great's army

Oh, but they were! The phalanx pinned the enemy down while the heavy cavalry out flanked the pinned infantry and charged their rear, forcing them into the pikes. It's called Hammer & Anvil tactics. The problem was that in the later eras, the Diadochi neither had the manpower nor the wealth to field such large amounts of heavy cavalry.

 

[nalivayko]

Oh, I have to join this one

However they did
not equip or train their infantry specifically to fight against charging cav. If so they would have given them long spears/pikes.
the large shields carried by the roman inf did offer some defence against horsearchers though.

During Ceasar's Civil War they are countless examples of legionaries charging the enemy cavalry. Pharsalus was decided by an infantry charge on the enemy cavalry... six cohorts vs 7,000. Ruspina was saved by an infantry charge on the enemy's mixed cohorts of cavalry and infantry.

On the other hand, Roman large shields did not save them at Carrhae.

I would have to say that cavalry and infantry alike are only as good as the general who leads them. Would be nice to give each arm bonuses based on general's traits (e.g. in King's AAR - his leader/monarch gets that trait about understanding of flanking).

Oh, but they were! The phalanx pinned the enemy down while the heavy cavalry out flanked the pinned infantry and charged their rear, forcing them into the pikes. It's called Hammer & Anvil tactics. The problem was that in the later eras, the Diadochi neither had the manpower nor the wealth to field such large amounts of heavy cavalry.

Precisely. Although I doubt the Diadochi lacked wealth to field heavy cavalry. Alexander got lucky, his father dedicated his life to build a perfect (or near perfect) army, Diadochi's environment, imho, was too unstable and they wanted the results too quickly. Simple lack of patience, maybe? Why train heavy cavalry when there is plenty of local cavalry around... which is mostly horse archers.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

yes the romans sometimes got beaten by cav armies. However they did
not equip or train their infantry specifically to fight against charging cav. If so they would have given them long spears/pikes.
the large shields carried by the roman inf did offer some defence against horsearchers though.

It was becouse armies of their enemies at the time contained mainly infantry. Legionaries were used for fighting those enemy masses of infantry. Cavalry (both Roman and enemy) was usually of poor quality and insignificant numbers, and for fighting them (as well as other tasks) Marian Roman armies used auxiliaries. Legionary wasn't defenceless against cavalry, though. For fighting mounted troops they had Pila and superior defense (mainly Scutum).

Later on, when appearance of stirrups and hard saddle increased importance of cavalry, Roman tactics adapted. You might be interested in reading Arrianus study over phalanx...

Oh, but they were! The phalanx pinned the enemy down while the heavy cavalry out flanked the pinned infantry and charged their rear, forcing them into the pikes. It's called Hammer & Anvil tactics. The problem was that in the later eras, the Diadochi neither had the manpower nor the wealth to field such large amounts of heavy cavalry.

Hammer & Anvil is simplification. It skips over light cavalry (used for scouting and in battles as well), hypaspistai, peltastai and archers among many others. It doesn't help to describe Gaugamela nor Hydaspes, either.

Precisely. Although I doubt the Diadochi lacked wealth to field heavy cavalry. Alexander got lucky, his father dedicated his life to build a perfect (or near perfect) army, Diadochi's environment, imho, was too unstable and they wanted the results too quickly. Simple lack of patience, maybe? Why train heavy cavalry when there is plenty of local cavalry around... which is mostly horse archers.

Some hellenistic kings lacked wealth and manpower to field cavalry-strong army (Philip V comes to mind); but some others (like Antioch III) had plenty of high quality heavy cavalry and excellent phalanx, supported by local levies and mercenaries. This army was in almost every way superior over Roman army. Almost - becouse it required competent leadership which Antioch III wasn't able to provide; it needed to be comanded, it's actions coordinated. It wasn't, and that's why it lost.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Later on, when appearance of stirrups and hard saddle increased importance of cavalry, Roman tactics adapted. You might be interested in reading Arrianus study over phalanx...

Well, Roman might be a bit misleading term, even if the eastern Roman empire did start to adopt stirrups in the 8th century AD, due to Avar influence.

In any case, many modern historians hold that the effect of stirrup on cavalry warfare was nowhere near as significant as it was once belived to have been.

 

[unmerged(68442)]

Jolt I was disagreeing with an earlier comment by comagoosie suggesting cavalry would start out worse than infantry but with time would get better using Macedonia as an example they having supirior cavalry before game start.

I think the successor’s biggest problem was fielding Hetairoi as opposed to "allied" or eastern subject heavy cavalry not any old peasant can join the Hetairoi they had to supply their own equipment if I'm not mistaken and be Macedonian this limits their numbers to the various nobles who have settled in the military settlements. and also limits their effectiveness if to many of the Hetairoi died the very control of the state would be threatened.

 

[Mavs]

Pax Romana had a bonus called "cavalry advantage", which it would confer to the side with the most cavalry in a battle, similarly to how Vicky handled artillery (with a named "artillery advantage, no less).

However, it seems that Paradox has abandoned the concept of named battlefield modifiers since EU3.

Something like that is what is needed. However, infantry superiority/inferiority would also be needed then in order to nullify all-cav armies.

 

[JASGripen]

Here it would be nice to know if different nations got different AI, so that they got different build strategies. Or if each nation just optimise the building of armies based on what is best regarding to the game engine and circumstances.

 

[niceta]

Romans used often cavalry but the elite were always mercenaries.. Scipyon used Numids, Cesar Germans and later Gallians Farsolos was won by cavalrymens... In italy the sannites were horsemen but they were destroyed during social war in 100-90 bc