Gray Fox wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:47 pm
G, I was a soldier for 21 years. Military History starts as the Age of Infantry. The Battle of Adrianople is recognized as the start of a Millennia of Cavalry rule, ending in the Age of Gunpowder. These are real milestones in military history.
Pnoff, I don't know how fast you can read but here's a source, Men in Arms by:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00303 ... bl_vppi_i0
Alex Roland is Professor of History Emeritus at Duke University, where he taught Military History and the History of Technology.
He further breaks this period into the Age of the Phalanx and the Age of the Legion, with no mention of how highly important cavalry were.
The Bibliography has many other good sources. Oh, and this was course material I took from an actual Professor of Military Science.
I'll look at relevant chapters when I'm in the library in a few days time since I promised (although I wanted Battle of Magnesia sources, but whatever
But I don't have very high expectations tbh. This is modernised (to 1991) 1956 book with slightly different authors, which is super old by any standards. This also looks to be "grand narrative" type of book from BC to 1980's, I don't expect it to be very in depth and correct in details.
Unfortunately, I can't find modern "grand narrative" quotes on relative importance of cavalry vs infantry. Searching term "Age of Infantry" does not give anything relevant neither in google nor in academic library search, I doubt this is current scientific term.
I found this particular topic quite stale academically, unfortunately (maybe Geffalrus or edb1815 can show me otherwise?). I wish I could access https://www.amazon.co.uk/Warhorse-Caval ... 1847250238
which seems to deal in this matters quite rigorously. (but I can pm rave review from The Historian Vol. 70 Issue 3 with some more details than on amazon page).
On Magnesia: I think main sources are quite clear on importance of flanking by cavalry, see
Livy 42 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/From_the ... ty/Book_37
Appian 34-35 (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... wars-7/#32
(edit. and quite consistent with wikipedia and youtube video, by the way. With all my snobbery, they are actually quite good on average, to the point that I got lazy at checking
I would be interested what "real historians" can add to them.)
The problem with Antiochus charge was that he got bogged down chasing camp instead of turning around and encircling infantry, which Roman cavaly did and won the day.
Nobody argues that infantry was not important or that it was loosing to cavalry in line battle regularly, it's all about enveloping flanks. Just look at open field battles (those mentioned in this thread, for example). I would choose Zama as iconic example (without scythe chariot debacle of Magnesia).
edit. Could somebody give a good list of important battles of the period, please? I want to count how many were decided by cavalry action.