3 ms·

This could very well be a legacy of Rome. Rome apparently wasn't big on cavalry. Second possibility is that it was not so much about military secrets, but rath

This could very well be a legacy of Rome. Rome apparently wasn't big on cavalry. Second possibility is that it was not so much about military secrets, but rather social class, as horsemanship was a generally required skill for nobility and these skills were taught as part of a "gentleman's" education. This was up until the time that European nobility began the intermarriage process with new moneyed classes, the related economic phenomena of companies such as East India, and the related military matters of colonizing (something new for Europe) far flung lands. Those changes to social order and military requirements likely gave us the impetus for "commoners" on horses; i.e. scaling the officer class ranks beyond aristocracy. Your Dom Duarte's timeline fits well with that speculation.

owyn 6y ago
Maybe in the later empire? The Romans might not have had their own cavalry but they used mercenaries heavily [1]. From what I remember of the Roman history podcast, many of Caesar's battles were won entirely by judicious use of cavalry. [1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germanic-cavalry.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germ...
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Rome wasn’t as big on cavalry as later European armies because the stirrup had not yet been invented at the time. The stirrup appeared only in the late first millennium BC/early first millennium AD in Asia, and incidentally was a big part of why the nomadic steppe societies of Asia were able to conquer their way so far into the west during the Age of Migrations.
icegreentea2 6y ago
I wouldn't describe late Rome as "not big" on cavalry. Certainly they were not cavalry dominant, but they had their share of cavalry units. See the cataphracts in the Eastern Empire. In the West, there's the famous/infamous "mobile cavalry reserve" that Gallienius setup. I think it's very much worth considering preservation bias. For example looking at wikitaneur as a whole (so mostly one on one, on foot combat), there's basically no material from before the 1400s.

owyn 6y ago

Maybe in the later empire? The Romans might not have had their own cavalry but they used mercenaries heavily [1]. From what I remember of the Roman history podcast, many of Caesar's battles were won entirely by judicious use of cavalry. [1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germanic-cavalry.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germ...

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Rome wasn’t as big on cavalry as later European armies because the stirrup had not yet been invented at the time. The stirrup appeared only in the late first millennium BC/early first millennium AD in Asia, and incidentally was a big part of why the nomadic steppe societies of Asia were able to conquer their way so far into the west during the Age of Migrations.

icegreentea2 6y ago

I wouldn't describe late Rome as "not big" on cavalry. Certainly they were not cavalry dominant, but they had their share of cavalry units. See the cataphracts in the Eastern Empire. In the West, there's the famous/infamous "mobile cavalry reserve" that Gallienius setup. I think it's very much worth considering preservation bias. For example looking at wikitaneur as a whole (so mostly one on one, on foot combat), there's basically no material from before the 1400s.