Slitherine

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:41 am**

Peltasts have better morale - your basic javelin armed LF in Greek armies is Poor.

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:40 am**

Thanks that makes sense.

I was thinking it is important to keep chronology in mind....

Romans would not have fought peltasts they would have fought Theurophorai (sorry for spelling) Downgrading Psiloi to poor so peltasts can stay average is a clever solution.

I know you guys aren't just pretty faces

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:33 am**

We tend to forget that the primary use of horse in most armies is to provide security and intelligence on the way to the next battle. Hannibals Numidian Lt horse earned their rep. by being dependable in their screening duties and tactically on the field, pursuing or not pursuing as ordered.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:50 pm**

kustenjaeger wrote:Greetings

nikgaukroger wrote:
kustenjaeger wrote:Greetings

I wonder whether the Roman view of the Numidians in the Punic Wars was coloured by the comparatively poor cavalry available to them? Generally the earlier Roman armies do not seem to have coped well with light horse of any description and had to use allies to address the issue.

Roman cavalry in the Punic wars was perfectly good cavalry and defeated Carthaginian/Gallic cavalry on a number of occasions. Their weakness compared to Carthaginian armies was that there weren't enoigh of them - they lost because they were out numbered.

Note also that at Cannae the cavalry facing the Numidians were not defeated by the Numidians but when the other wing of carthaginian cavalry started to attack them in the rear. Numidians were good but had their limitations - and were outclassed by similar Spanish cavalry at a later date IIRC.
While I'm not sure I'd class Roman cavalry as being 'perfectly good' (although my view may just be GRW (generally received wisdom) rather than being right - hence the reference to me needing to go back to the sources) I would agree they seem to usually have been adequate man to man and that their major problem was indeed attributed to lack of numbers compared to their Punic opponents.

Polybius' description of Cannae indeed makes clear that the Numidian role was effectively to pin/nullify the allied horse - who clearly did not cope well wth dealing with them (although admittedly they are likely to have been outnumbered). The allied horse fled when Hasdrubal's cavalry appeared in their rear. The Numidians were then used for pursuit leaving Hasdrubal's Celtic and Iberian cavalry to fall on the Roman rear:

"The Numidian horse on the Carthaginian right were meanwhile charging the cavalry on the Roman left; and though, from the peculiar nature of their mode of fighting, they neither inflicted nor received much harm, they yet rendered the enemy's horse useless by keeping them occupied, and charging them first on one side and then on another. But when Hasdrubal, after all but annihilating the cavalry by the river, came from the left to the support of the Numidians, the Roman allied cavalry, seeing his charge approaching, broke and fled. At that point Hasdrubal appears to have acted with great skill and discretion. Seeing the Numidians to be strong in numbers, and more effective and formidable to troops that had once been forced from their ground, he left the pursuit to them; while he himself hastened to the part of the field where the infantry were engaged, and brought his men up to support the Libyans. Then, by charging the Roman legions on the rear, and harassing them by hurling squadron after squadron upon them at many points at once, he raised the spirits of the Libyans, and dismayed and depressed those of the Romans." {source: Polybius 3.116 from Perseus}

Regards

From my experience playing the Romans against the Carthaginians using starter armies I would have to agree and say that the Roman cavalry are inferior. The carthaginians have Spanish cv and Gallic cv which are both superior. Every time they have fought my cv their leaders were added which make them fight like elites. Then throw in that Gallic cv are armoured and they are far better than the Roman cv. I have beat the Spanish cv once but the Gallic cv after breaking their opponents came and broke the remaining Roman cv in 2 turns. Spanish cv don't frighten me but when I see Gallic cv coming I tend to back off towards Rome : )

So from my experience the Roman cv has to be used as skirmishing cv for the most part. You want to delay the cv fight as long as possible.

Brian

Slitherine

Areas open to misinterpretation & why are velites protec