Originally Posted by Pruitt
When you talk about Roman Citizen Cavalry you have to be more specific about the period talked about. ...
If you look into the Macedonian Cavalry and Seleucid Cavalry in the same one on one basis they would probably show the Roman Citizen Cavalry was not a factor in the victory.
Yep, I guess what I'm referring to is Allied cavalry in general. As in Allied cavalry from the Italian peninsula from Italic allies, from north Africa, from Spain, etc. The usage of cavalry during these times were far superior than the post-Marian cavalry, which were relegated to minor roles.
Originally Posted by Gooner
Just came across these couple of pieces from Plutarch.
39/4... the horses of the Parthians took fright and gave way, and the Parthians fled without coming to close quarters.
45/3... suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout. This happened also on the following days as the Romans, little by little, proceeded on their way.
Most of the Parthian army are untrained conscripts. ...?
In terms of individual skill and physical strength, a Celtic warrior or Germanic tribesman was probably superior.
In terms of quality of equipment, the Spanish, Seleucids, etc sometimes had better equipment, especially their elites.
The Roman army is great not because their soldiers were the best equipped, best trained, strongest, etc but because it is good overall - very good infantry with good training and relatively good equipment, while being very cost effective with a rich state and large population base to support it.