07-06-2012, 03:41 PM
It is interesting to read of later examples of cavalry vs infantry and their marching speeds but I do wonder if the Romans had a system that negated such disparaties. Surely we should not separate the cavalry from the legionary when discussing marching rates and durability? The legions needed cavalry for reconnaisance, messaging, flank control and on the battle field (and to carry the pampered, aristocratic, young officers!).
Having a need requires the supply of the means, i.e. the Roman army was designed to accomodate the needs of the cavalry. The problem for us is that the design is largely hidden because the ancient writers tended not to write about the mundane.
But there are couple of large clues -
1) Roman campaigning did not start until the grass-growing season (e.g. Caesar delayed the Belgae campaign in 57 B.C. until sufficient forage was available - Caes. BGall. 2.2.2; Lynn (1993) 12 and n. 3.)
2) Legionaries apaprently carried small sickles ( Josephus. BJ 3.55. Livy 42.64.3 reports soldiers using sickles to clean wheat ). These were used to gather human foodstuffs and, of course, fodder for mules and horses. And, the time taken to cut the fodder/hay would have been much less than the pasture time a horse or mule would need to eat the same calorific value of grass.
So, I see the legionaries and auxs. quickly gathering fodder for the cavalry as required (horses also fed hard grain carried on mules). Any gathered excess would be loaded on the mules. In this way the legions are the food store and provider for the cavalry; the cavalry has to stay close to the legions to maintain its pace. But, the Romans probably did not see the issue as legionaries vs cavalry, instead the legion is THE unit and this included a cavalry contingent that had to be catered (sorry, pun intended) for by design. After all, why create a system to keep the legionaries marching 29km/day and not do the same for the cavalry?
So, the cavalry were tied to the legions when on campaign. The cavalry could move tactically faster than the legionaries (reconnaissance etc.) but strategically the two would have moved at the same rate (average 29km/day). In this sense the cavalry are the electrons to the legionary nucleus.
Remounts would be required but, as far as I'm aware, we don't know how many. However, I expect that the majority of the remounts marched with the legionaries - probably with a nose-bag stuffed with grain! - and this negates the need for the patrolling cavalry to tend for the remounts.
In this model the cavalry was constantly quicker than the legionary but only because the legionary made it so. However, separate the cavalry from the legionary and the horse (fast-) food store is no longer available and the cavalry would, over a number of days, slow down.
Very practical chaps those Romans.
Regards, Steve
Having a need requires the supply of the means, i.e. the Roman army was designed to accomodate the needs of the cavalry. The problem for us is that the design is largely hidden because the ancient writers tended not to write about the mundane.
But there are couple of large clues -
1) Roman campaigning did not start until the grass-growing season (e.g. Caesar delayed the Belgae campaign in 57 B.C. until sufficient forage was available - Caes. BGall. 2.2.2; Lynn (1993) 12 and n. 3.)
2) Legionaries apaprently carried small sickles ( Josephus. BJ 3.55. Livy 42.64.3 reports soldiers using sickles to clean wheat ). These were used to gather human foodstuffs and, of course, fodder for mules and horses. And, the time taken to cut the fodder/hay would have been much less than the pasture time a horse or mule would need to eat the same calorific value of grass.
So, I see the legionaries and auxs. quickly gathering fodder for the cavalry as required (horses also fed hard grain carried on mules). Any gathered excess would be loaded on the mules. In this way the legions are the food store and provider for the cavalry; the cavalry has to stay close to the legions to maintain its pace. But, the Romans probably did not see the issue as legionaries vs cavalry, instead the legion is THE unit and this included a cavalry contingent that had to be catered (sorry, pun intended) for by design. After all, why create a system to keep the legionaries marching 29km/day and not do the same for the cavalry?
So, the cavalry were tied to the legions when on campaign. The cavalry could move tactically faster than the legionaries (reconnaissance etc.) but strategically the two would have moved at the same rate (average 29km/day). In this sense the cavalry are the electrons to the legionary nucleus.
Remounts would be required but, as far as I'm aware, we don't know how many. However, I expect that the majority of the remounts marched with the legionaries - probably with a nose-bag stuffed with grain! - and this negates the need for the patrolling cavalry to tend for the remounts.
In this model the cavalry was constantly quicker than the legionary but only because the legionary made it so. However, separate the cavalry from the legionary and the horse (fast-) food store is no longer available and the cavalry would, over a number of days, slow down.
Very practical chaps those Romans.
Regards, Steve
