Quality of the Equites Alares compared with the Equites in a Cohors Equitata

[michaellaneuk]

I have just located my copy (now showing its age I am afraid) of Naphtali Lewis & Meyer Reinhold's "Roman Civilisation, Sourcebook II: The Empire". In the section on the Roman Army they quote in English translation, the Emperor Hadrian's remarks, during his visit to the Army in Africa Province, to the Cavalry of Cohors VI Commagenorum.

 He says:
"It is difficult for the cavalry of the cohorts to make a good impression even by themselves, and still harder for them not to give dissatisfaction after the exercise of the auxiliary cavalry.  They have a larger ground coverage, a larger number of men throwing javelins, their right wheeling is in close array, their Cantabrian manoeuvre closely knit, the beauty of their horses and the elegance of their equipment is in keeping with their level of pay. Nevertheless and despite the heat, you avoided being tedious by doing promptly what had to be done. In addition you hurled stones from slings and fought with missiles. Your mounting was everywhere brisk.  That the care taken by my legate Catullinus, vir clarissimus, has been outstanding is apparent from the fact that such men as you under his command ... [the rest is lost]"

His low expectations of the Equites Cohortales compared with what he saw in the Equites Alares, from an unfortunately un-named cavalry Ala, is evident as is his appreciation of how well they performed.

There is little doubt therefore that, in the view of the Emperor himself, his best quality cavalry were to be found in the Alae.  And so they should be given their pay was rather higher than the horsemen in the Cohortes Equitatae.

[Adrian Nayler]

The most recent study of Hadrian's speeches at Lambaesis can be found in: Michael P. Speidel (2006) Emperor Hadrian's speeches to the African Army: a new Text, Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

Speidel's translation differs slightly from that Michael quoted.

Page 15
"Horsemen of Cohors VI Commagenorum
It is hard for horsemen of a cohort to please, even as they are, and harder still not to displease after a show by horsemen of an ala: the training field differs in size, spear throwers are fewer, the rightwheelers are tight, the Cantabrian formation is crammed, the build of horses and shine of weapons in keeping with the pay level. But you have banished weariness by your eagerness, by doing briskly what had to be done. Moreover, you both shot stones from slings and fought with javelins; everywhere you jumped nimbly onto your horses. The outstanding manhood of noble Catullinus, my legate, shows itself in that under this man you are such men."

Hadrian also addressed an ala as follows:

Page 14
"July 13. Ala I Pannoniorum . . . . . . . . .
You did everything according to the book: you filled the training ground with your wheelings, you threw spears not ungracefully, though with short and stiff shafts. Several of you hurled lancea spears with skill. Your jumping onto the horses here was lively and yesterday swift. Had anything been lacking, I would note it; had anything stood out, I would mention it. You pleased equally throughout the whole maneuver. Noble Catullinus, my deputy, gives the same care to all - - -"

Whilst it does seem that Hadrian's expectations for the horsemen of a cohort are lower than those for an ala I interpret the two passages slightly differently. I think that the ala met Hadrian's expectations of them. They were no better nor worse than his expectation and so, in that respect, 'nothing special'. The cohort exceeded his expectation so deserved and received praise. These differences are in the context of training ground exercises and displays, in which Hadrian admits cohorts find it difficult to match the polish of an ala. He is not comparing their records in battle.

Hadrian's comments to the legionary horse further suggest to me that he is judging the troops on their look and style (their 'elegance') rather than their effectiveness in battle.

Page 9
"To the legionary horsemen
Military exercises somehow have their own laws by which, if anything is added or taken away, the exercise gets either lesser or harder. And the harder one makes it, the less graceful it becomes. You have made the hardest out of a hard task by throwing spears while wearing the cuirass, and thereby you lost in elegance. But I do approve the spirit in which you did this - - -"

I have always thought that the idea that cohort horsemen were of inferior quality is probably unfair and unwarranted. The notion draws from Cheeseman's (1914) view that they were just mounted infantrymen saying they "were worse mounted than the equites alares, and less skilled in cavalry manoeuvres."

Roy Davies' article on Cohortes Equitatae (1971) rehabilitated them to a great extent, viewing them as true cavalry but of a somewhat inferior cut. He concludes "there were two types. The one was more expensive and was mainly a strike force, the other was armed similarly and equipped in the same way and operated also as cavalry, but was mostly deployed on supporting duties. The former were taller and had better horses, the latter were more closely associated with the infantry and at times and in special circumstances dismounted."

A good analogy for this might be French Napoleonic cuirassiers and dragoons. The cuirassiers have higher status, were saved for the crucial moments in battle and were not expended in the many and varied duties of campaigning, as were the dragoons. However, in a battle they were both fully effective battle-cavalry though the cuirassiers likely had the edge. The crux is that they were both effective and that is how I see the comparison between ala and cohort. I do not believe that the Imperial Roman army would have aimed to field 'inferior' cavalry on campaign nor in battle.

On this basis I do not feel that the cohortes equitales should be rated any less than the equites alares in our battle rules. If one wants to make a distinction I would perhaps instead go the other way and rate the alares as superior! Personally, I treat them all pretty much the same.

[michaellaneuk]

Thanks Adrian for your response and the later translations.  I am particularly grateful that your translator provides the identity of the Ala.  I entirely agree with your conclusion on the depiction of these two types of cavalry for gaming purposes.  Indeed my current favoured rules, "To the Strongest!" rate the Alae as Veteran Cavalry and the Equites Cohortales as Ordinaty and certainly not Raw. Your comparison with Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Dragoons is rather apt.

[dwkay57]

More than a few years back, I came across a video of "Hadrian's Cavalry" performing at a fort on the Wall (why is everything I ramble on about to do with the Wall? ) and at the same time one of the Royal Canada Mounted Police doing their musical ride. Both were 32 person units, both did quite similar moves, but there was a bit more class and precision with the Mounties which to me sums up the difference ala and cohorts equitata.

PS. And a few years before that whilst at a National Trust property I watched a group of Napoleonic cavalry reenactors trying to do some basic wheels. It was obviously the first time some of them had tried this and wasn't helped by the disparity in horse types. Obviously, they would be classed as Irregulars....

[dwkay57]

PPS. Differences in pay scales might also be an indicator of difference in quality (or at least anticipated differences in performance).

[Erpingham]

More than a few years back, I came across a video of "Hadrian's Cavalry" performing at a fort on the Wall

This performance, watched live by, IIRC, Mark G was subject to a great deal of debate on the forum a few years back. The Mounties got into that as well.

Add: See https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=2823.0.  It was indeed Mark.