The high elves

Oreb · Post by **Oreb** » January 29th, 2006, 10:12 pm

byzantines did use Cataphracts and Rome never assimilated them (I think), for the Byzantine Capital was nicknamed "Rome" and in someways was better then Rome, its real name was Constintitaple which was named by Emperor Constantine III

Post by **Maeglin Dubh** » January 29th, 2006, 11:33 pm

Nicknamed Rome?

Byzantium et al was just the Eastern half of the Roman empire proper until the Western half fell.

Rome began using cavalry before their fall, but not to the effect that the cataphracts were used. Mainly because of the terrain difference in their theatres of engagement.

Oreb · Post by **Oreb** » January 31st, 2006, 9:13 am

Maeglin Dubh wrote:Nicknamed Rome?

It was known as the Second Rome

RaptorNoctis · Post by **RaptorNoctis** » January 31st, 2006, 12:27 pm

Errrr Rome did conquer Byzantium (or constantinople as it was called later on), and just like Rome it was called "the city". It was not nicknamed "Rome", they just had the same nickname.

Rome started using cavalry very early in their conquest, but after a while they started using barbaric cavalry in stead of training their own squads...

Temuchin Khan · Post by **Temuchin Khan** » January 31st, 2006, 3:13 pm

When Constantine I rebuilt Byzantium and made it the new capital, he named it New Rome. "Constantinople" was a name given to it later, in tribute to the fact that it was Constantine I who had built the city.

Trust me on this, the history of the Eastern Roman Empire is one of the historical periods that fascinates me most.

Post by **Leonhard** » January 31st, 2006, 3:25 pm

I may be mistaken, but concerning the use of cavalry by the Romans, Caesar precises using them a lot against the gallics. To do a pretty inaccurate summary of his strategy, legions did the fighting, cavalry did the slaughtering (and that was a pretty high scale slaughtering). Hadrian also reports having fought on horses I think (at least if the Memories of Hadrian of Yourcenar tell the truth, which I think is ok), and finally, I think I can remind, than one of the big orders for the Romans, besides being a senator, was being a knight. This was certainly linked to cavalry. Before the first century B.C., I don't know anyway.

Temuchin Khan · Post by **Temuchin Khan** » February 1st, 2006, 2:19 pm

Leonhard wrote:I may be mistaken, but concerning the use of cavalry by the Romans, Caesar precises using them a lot against the gallics. To do a pretty inaccurate summary of his strategy, legions did the fighting, cavalry did the slaughtering (and that was a pretty high scale slaughtering). Hadrian also reports having fought on horses I think (at least if the Memories of Hadrian of Yourcenar tell the truth, which I think is ok), and finally, I think I can remind, than one of the big orders for the Romans, besides being a senator, was being a knight. This was certainly linked to cavalry. Before the first century B.C., I don't know anyway.

Military tribunes, consuls, and emperors certainly rode horses, and Rome always had at least some cavalry, but they were used mostly as scouts and flankers and pursuers, not as rank-and-file. Until the late third/early fourth century, Rome's armies focused on infantry, so much so that some military historians have asserted that Alexander the Great would have annihilated any Roman army in just a few hours.

Caesar's cavalry, if I remember rightly, was mostly composed of other Gallic tribes which were friendly tohis cause. As to the equestrian ("horseman") class (I assume that's what you meant by "knights"), though it was originally composed of those who fought in the cavalry, eventually it developed into a merchant class, keeping only the name "equestrian", even though they were no longer horsemen.

Anyway, to the best of my memory, all that is true. Feel free to double-check it, though.

Post by **Leonhard** » February 1st, 2006, 2:29 pm

All you say makes sense; I said knights for the romans because it is actually the same word in french, but I don't know in english. I think this reflects a role of cavalry in the beginning roman nation or empire, but I haven't checked this, so it is not a statement. Indeed in the fights agains gallics the horse riders were pursuers, in fact they did some remarkable slaughters after the gallics' lines were broken.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » February 1st, 2006, 9:06 pm

Legions were fairly good at holding against a charge (pilums are always a good countermove too), so i think Alexander would have had some problems, given his suicidal habit of charging with his elite cavalry to the center of the enemy.

AFAIK, the equites class was composed of rich romans who could afford the equipment and horse, but in not so much generations it did degenerate into a merchant class, though they still held the name.

So i may be your double-checking.

Alks · Post by **Alks** » February 1st, 2006, 10:49 pm

Cuyo Quiz wrote:), so i think Alexander would have had some problems, given his suicidal habit of charging with his elite cavalry to the center of the enemy.

In what battle exactly he did that?
And elite forces was not cavalry, it was the phalanx who took the best units down. It was Cheronea, when he actually did his precious cavalry charge, but he was merely commander of left wing there(as I remember).

Keelta MacRonan · Post by **Keelta MacRonan** » February 1st, 2006, 11:59 pm

Yeah, I think all that is true about the knights too. After reading I, CLAUDIUS I got a really confused about why Romans were reffering to France. Although Robert Graves did not really call much at all by it's Roman name.

Post by **turin** » February 2nd, 2006, 1:55 am

I, CLAVDIVS seemed rather clear to me... you just have to read the prologue, where it explains why he uses the placenames he does.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » February 2nd, 2006, 1:55 am

Alexander commanded directly the cavalry guard (safest place for a commander to be too), and, AFAIK, most of his battles consisted on making some kind of pressure in a flank or placing a bait on one side of the battlefield, and when the enemy started moving, he would charge to the center of the enemy, breaking the cohesion of their forces.

IIRC, poor Darius fell for this over and over again.

Temuchin Khan · Post by **Temuchin Khan** » February 2nd, 2006, 3:54 am

Cuyo Quiz wrote:Alexander commanded directly the cavalry guard (safest place for a commander to be too), and, AFAIK, most of his battles consisted on making some kind of pressure in a flank or placing a bait on one side of the battlefield, and when the enemy started moving, he would charge to the center of the enemy, breaking the cohesion of their forces.

IIRC, poor Darius fell for this over and over again.

J.F.C. Fuller, one of the twentieth century's finest military historians, compared Alexander's tactics to boxing, with the cavalry delivering the knockout punch.

J.F.C. Fuller was also the guy who insisted that Alexander would have beaten the Romans -- in his biography of Julius Caesar, no less. Here are his exact words: "...in composition and tactical arrangement [the Roman army] cannot compare with the scientifically organized army of Philip of Macedon and of his son Alexander, or with those of Alexander's immediate successors. Pace Livy (IX, 19), any one of those armies would have annihilated a numerically equal force of Romans in a brief morning's engagement."

The name of the book? Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, and Tyrant.

Of course, Fuller also argued in that book that Caesar is overrated.

Keelta MacRonan · Post by **Keelta MacRonan** » February 2nd, 2006, 12:13 pm

turin wrote:

I, CLAVDIVS seemed rather clear to me... you just have to read the prologue, where it explains why he uses the placenames he does.

Ah. That would have been smart. I hardly ever read prologues, though.
Anyway, this thread has kind of degenarated from its original topic. Shouldn't we let Jetryl have his thread back? Or Temuchin Khan?