War Horse

by Louis A. DiMarco

  Major defeats at the hands of the Persians and Goths in 363 and 378 not only hastened the declining efficiency of the army in general, but illustrated the cavalry’s lack of discipline. The taxation system within the empire also broke down and the administration of the army faltered. Units were not paid and local commanders had to equip their soldiers. Often commanders required the individual soldier to provide his own equipment and mounts. Increasingly, commanders and wealthy individuals purchased bands of private warriors, mostly cavalry, called bucellarii, to supplement the capabilities of the army. In many, if not most, cases the bucellarii were better equipped and trained than the army’s forces.19 In 476 the mostly Germanic troops of the Roman army in Italy disposed of the last Roman emperor in the west, Romulus Augustulus. The western empire broke apart into independent provinces and kingdoms, each with its own army—many of which retained some of the practices and traditions of the empire. The empire itself would continue for hundreds of years in the east under the banner of Byzantium and centered in the eastern capital of Constantinople.

  ROMAN CAVALRY HORSES

  As might be expected in a diverse empire such as Rome, over the course of several hundred years, no one specific horse type was ever associated with the empire. Instead, the Roman Empire pulled horses from every corner of the empire and used a variety of techniques to acquire them. Based on the evidence in Roman art and the comments of Roman historians, the ideal horse was large, well muscled, and had a slightly convex head.20 Though the Romans had an image of a good cavalry mount, the Roman cavalry used virtually all serviceable mounts regardless of the particulars of their general appearance.

  Rome became the melting pot of the world’s horse markets. The ancient writings record over 50 breeds by name. Rome itself, and the Italian peninsula in general, was not known for quality horses in the ancient world—although horses were well established in those areas where natural pasturing was available. Asian horses, or at least the characteristics of the Asian breeds, arrived in Roman service from two directions. The Asian types, known by the Romans as Persian, Parthian, Thracian, or Thessalian, were probably similar to the modern Akhal-Teke and passed from the Middle East into Greece during the reign of Alexander and his successors. These horses entered Roman service from Greece. The primary characteristic of these breeds, which averaged slightly more than 15 hands, with the largest approaching 16 hands, was their size. The lighter Middle Eastern types, predecessors of the Caspian breed, influenced the chariot horses of the pharaohs and came to Rome from North Africa. The Romans knew them as the Libyan breed. Carthaginians and Numidians brought the light, refined characteristics of this breed to Iberia where they mixed with European stock and became known as the Spanish breed. The Libyan breed was probably closely associated with the modern Arab and Barb. Though the Romans considered the Spanish horse “small and ugly,” they still used it and considered it an excellent cavalry mount.21

  The Roman cavalry got their mounts from various sources. In the republican period, when the equites came from the upper class, a recruit arrived with his own horse. During the imperial period and the late empire when many of the cavalry came from northern empire conquests, they brought their own regional mounts to the force in most cases; therefore, their horses were of a totally different type. As long as alae remained based in or near their home regions, they almost certainly replenished with indigenous horses bred by or for the army in the region. Two of the four original ancient horse types were common in northern Europe: type 1, a Celtic pony type; and type 2, a Norse horse type (a coldblood or draught type horse). These two types are likely to have had strong influences on the horses that came into the Roman Empire through its conquests in central and northern Europe. Together, they may have produced a composite type that was larger than a pony but still small (by modern standards), heavy boned, and not very attractive. Short, shaggy, and stout horses were the likely mounts of Caesar’s Gallic and Germanic enemies and allies, and came to be the mounts of the early Gallic alae. During and after the Roman conquest, the Gauls were interested in improving their horse stock. They imported Italian horses and took advantage of Spanish and Libyan horses coming from the south.22 By the late imperial period, three or four hundred years after Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, the horses of central Europe had changed significantly. They were still not very refined, but by then the Asian influence combined with selective breeding would have produced a larger horse that made a substantial cavalry mount.

  The Romans preferred stallions for military service because of their aggressiveness. The steppe tribes, along with some European tribes, favored geldings. Gelded horses were less aggressive and thus were easier to train and control. Mixing the types would have caused problems on campaign, so units probably were equipped with either all stallions or all mares and geldings.

  ROMAN RIDING TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT

  The capabilities of cavalry in action took a major step forward at the beginning of the Roman imperial period. Following the Gallic wars, the Roman cavalry adopted the most important new piece of cavalry equipment since the Assyrians began fielding warriors mounted on horseback: the solid frame saddle.

  Though likely of Celtic origin, and possibly adopted by the Romans during campaigns in Spain and Gaul, the Romans standardized the design and use of the solid frame saddle. All cavalry of the empire were equipped with it. Awareness of the saddle—its design, use, and advantages—spread throughout the empire and across its borders. Parthian and Sassanian heavy cavalry used a similar design. It is unknown if they developed it independently or picked up the design from the Celts or from the Romans.

  Prior to the adoption of the framed saddle, unframed saddles were in use by many different horse cultures. A rider in an unframed saddle was still very unstable and also sat directly on the back of the horse, putting pressure directly on the horse’s spine. The framed saddle addressed both of these issues. The Roman saddle consisted of horns positioned in the four corners of the saddle. A wooden frame covered by leather connected the horns. Key places, where the rider’s body came into contact with the frame, and the frame contacted the horse, were padded. The four horns, bracing the rider’s upper thighs in the front and his hips in the rear, provided a secure seat. Additionally, the frame arched over the horse’s spine, avoiding this sensitive point and resting against the strong back muscles.

  Unfortunately, no complete Roman saddles are extant. However, historians and archaeologists working with horse experts, and through experimentation, have managed to infer, with reasonable accuracy, the construction and working of the saddle. Leather saddle covers and metal horn braces have been found at various Roman archeological sites. Using these artifacts as a pattern and by examining Roman statuary of horses and cavalry figures, historian Peter Connolly built a model of a Roman saddle. Stitching holes and stress marks on the original leather and surviving metal parts gave some indication of how the pieces must have fit together and how the internal framing was constructed. Further examination of archeological findings also indicated to Connolly and his colleagues that there were likely two versions of the four horned Roman saddle: a short horn version that was comfortable and useful for general cavalry operations; and a long horn version that was less comfortable, but literally “locked” the rider into the saddle. Connolly surmises that heavy cavalry employing the heavy contus lance used the long horn saddle.23

  After the replica saddle was complete, a variety of riders tested it including the equestrian historian and competitive endurance riding champion Ann Hyland. Hyland found that the short horn saddle provided incomparable security compared to riding bareback.24 She also found that the saddle greatly improved the rider’s ability to negotiate obstacles of all types, including riding up and down steep hills and jumping. Her conclusions regarding the long horn saddle were equally illuminating. “Similar in concept to the first saddle, it has far more pronounced horns that sweep back from the pommel and forward to form the cantle and to lock the rider in with even gr
eater security. Indeed, a cavalryman receiving a shocking blow would be very hard to dislodge, and a wounded trooper would also be able to remain mounted until he could retire and be assisted to dismount for medical care.”25

  The four-horned Roman saddle came into use around the beginning of the imperial period. It provided the cavalryman the security needed to fight more effectively from horseback, giving him the power and authority to better strike at the enemy with lance or sword. It also removed the threat of being easily dismounted. Further, it greatly improved the tactical mobility of cavalry by allowing them to maneuver at a trot, canter, or gallop easily without fear of the disrupting effects of intervening rough terrain. The advent of the framed saddle permitted teaching basic riding skills more quickly and allowed more time for weapons and collective unit training. It decreased the importance of recruiting troopers who were “born to the horse.” Essentially, all aspects of individual horsemanship became easier to manage, which had a positive impact on the combat effectiveness of individual troopers and the cavalry arm as a whole.

  Though a great advance over anything previously seen, the Roman horn saddle was still relatively primitive. The fit was not comparable with the comfortable and secure styling of a modern saddle. Just how the Roman saddle was girthed to the horse is not known, but some type of strap, perhaps more than one, had to be used. The Romans used breast straps to prevent the saddle from sliding to the rear and breeching straps to prevent it sliding forward. In addition, a thick pad under the saddle protected the horse from abrasion.26

  In the area of equitation the Romans were not innovators, but during the imperial period the efficiency of their military system improved as they copied and institutionalized effective techniques, systems, and knowledge from all over the known world and disseminated the information to Roman forces throughout the empire. This made their cavalry much more capable than it otherwise would have been. Standardized practices such as veterinary care for the horses and stabling design and procedures reflected the cutting edge of equine knowledge. The Romans took to heart the training of cavalry as described by the Greek general Xenophon. In fact, Roman sources describe a school for troopers and horses that included mounting and dismounting drills, jumping exercises, swimming drills, weapons drills, and thrice monthly 20-mile training marches.27

  The Romans used various types of snaffles and curbs to control their horses. Most of the Roman bits were rather severe and would have quickly gotten the horse’s attention.28 The curb bit had the advantage of lending itself to one-handed usage and was more compatible with the Roman’s routine use of a shield which he carried in his left hand. In combat, he also carried both reins in that hand. Through experiments, Ann Hyland found that the shield pressed against the horse’s neck on the left side could substitute for the left rein when attempting to make the horse turn to the right. Thus the shield did not drastically affect the rider’s ability to control the horse using a neck reining technique.

  The Romans also used a type of horseshoe. It was a clamp or tie type designed for temporary use. It could be used when marching on particularly hard surfaces, perhaps on paved Roman roads (although the cavalry is reported to have typically ridden to the side of the road) or on rocky ground. It could also have been used to protect an injured or damaged hoof.29

  ENEMIES OF ROME

  Like the Roman army, the enemies of Rome varied greatly over the long life of the empire. The Carthaginian armies best represent Rome’s African adversaries, who were active in the early period of the republic. Carthage based its cavalry on the Macedonian model and did not vary much from the Roman cavalry in equipment or appearance. The other important cavalry closely associated with Carthage were the Numidian cavalry. They rode without saddle or bridle, controlling the horse through natural aids as well as a short stick, through which they transmitted commands to the horse by tapping on various parts of the horse’s body. Numidian cavalry, probably because of their unique riding style, avoided close combat. They excelled as skirmishers and scouts. Their sole armament was usually several throwing javelins.30

  Rome’s early primary western European enemies were the Celtic tribes of Germany, Spain, and Gaul. Rome stationed legions in Spain after the Second Punic War to prevent its use as a base for future European invasions by the Carthaginians. Spanish warriors had previously fought Rome as part of Hannibal’s army. Hannibal made great use of light Spanish cavalry. During Roman occupation, the indigenous tribes of Spain waged a brutal guerrilla war against Rome that lasted from 201 BC to 133 BC. Cavalry were an important part of the hit-and-run tactics of the Spanish insurgents. Strabo described the level of horsemanship among the Spanish: “And intermingled with their forces of infantry was a force of cavalry, for their horses were trained to climb mountains, and, whenever there was need for it, to kneel down promptly at the word of command.”31 Spanish horsemanship was superior to that of the Roman cavalry and during the fighting in Spain, the Romans regularly hired tribal mercenaries to meet their cavalry needs. These same warriors, when not in Roman employ, would be Rome’s enemies. After its complete incorporation into the empire, Spain supplied significant numbers of cavalry to imperial service.

  The Gauls, operating in what is today northern and central France, Belgium, and Luxemburg, fielded superior cavalry who were solid horsemen and fierce warriors. Their small horses were adequate to their needs. The senior class of warriors associated with the tribal nobility manned the Gallic cavalry forces. Gallic cavalry tactics were very simple: a volley of javelins followed by a mounted charge using lance and sword. The Gauls prided themselves on their swordsmanship, and the sword was their preferred weapon in close fighting.32

  The Celtic tribes found in Gaul and Britain still used chariots, which were ineffective in a major battle. British chariots usually transported noted warriors to the battlefield, where the warriors would dismount and retainers would then take the chariots to the rear. Celts reportedly engaged Romans with spears from the chariots in isolated skirmishes. Much of their impact was psychological. Caesar described their employment in Britain:

  Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdrew some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.33

  Caesar relied heavily on allied southern Gallic cavalry in his wars against the Gauls from 58 to 50 BC. In the imperial period, the Gallic cavalry became the major component of the Roman cavalry force. Strabo described them as “fighters by nature, they are better as cavalry than as infantry; and the best cavalry force the Romans have comes from these people.”

  Several other tribal powers challenged Rome, including the Goths and the Huns. The Goths were a Germanic people made up of a variety of tribes who were a constant menace to the late empire’s frontiers. Caesar commented on Germanic cavalry and their horses: “But those [are] poor and ill-shaped animals, which belong to their country; these, however, they render capable of the greatest labor by daily exercise. In cavalry actions they frequently leap from their horses and fight on foot; and train their horses to stand still in the very spot on which they leave them.” In the late empire the Goths raided deep into Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Greece, and decisively defeated the Roman army in the east and killed Emperor Valens at
the battle of Adrianople in 378 AD (see below) and successfully sacked Rome in 410 AD.34 Like the Gauls, they revered the mounted warrior; their leaders and senior warriors fought as cavalry. In weapons, armor, and horses they often used captured or outdated Roman equipment. Their effectiveness and success in battle was a function of their skill as individual warriors and the declining effectiveness of the Roman military.

  The eastern frontiers of the empire posed the most serious military challenges to Rome. Here the legions came into contact with kingdoms derived from the Persian kingdom of Darius and Alexander the Great’s eastern empire. These kingdoms were heirs to the combined cavalry traditions of the Persians and the Macedonians.

  The Romans first came into contact with the Parthians in 54 BC, and for the next three hundred years they were Rome’s most dangerous opponent. After the death of Alexander the Great, Seleucus, one of Alexander’s ablest generals, won control of Babylon and eventually expanded his governance throughout most of Alexander’s Asian holdings. By 185 BC his Seleucid kingdom included all of modern-day Palestine, Syria, southern Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. With the exception of Egypt, Armenia, and northern Anatolia, he controlled most of the lands of the great Persian kings. Gradually, the Seleucid kingdom broke apart as regional rulers tested the strength and reach of the capital in Mesopotamia, and powerful enemies encroached on the kingdom from east and west. The Parthian kings led a coalition of smaller provinces and principalities in a successful series of campaigns against the Seleucians, and by 129 BC they had won control of all the old Persian lands from Mesopotamia east.35 Like the Persians before them, cavalry dominated the organization of the Parthian armies. The Parthian armies contained infantry, but they were not the striking power of the army. The Romans had no fear of Parthian infantry. What gave the Romans pause were the two types of cavalry deployed by the Parthians.