Talk:Roman cavalry

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AZ0000ZA.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
The current second paragraph "After having declined in size following the subjugation of the Mediterranean..." concerns only the Roman navy and belongs in another article, perhaps that one. Here it is a confusing diversion.--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The deli-menu style "fotostrip" down the side interferes with the display of text.--Wetman (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman cavalry
In the section, campaign history, there is a massive amount of information, unfortunately all from ONE source that talks less about the actual campaign history of Roman cavalry but more about their effectiveness in the Second Punic War. Perhaps 1,500 words are in that section and nearly all of it is about Second Punic War cavalry in where the Carthaginian cavalry clearly and consistently beated the Roman counterparts and where Sidnell, the only source that the editor has managed to procur, attempts to argue otherwise. Regardless of its truth, I would like to say though, that a section entitled: Campaign history, should accurately reflect the campaign history of Roman cavalry and not a biased argument that is irrelevent to campaign history and has only one source. -Artaxus 22:23 02/22/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaxus (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the roman cavalry were not consistently beaten by the cathaginians at one battle (the name escapes me) the romans lost because they were surrounded and massacred (they didn't give though) and that's hardly one source Sidnells book is backed by the roman accounts and chronicles of the time although I think campaign history should be expanded as you said Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that in most sources and historical examples the roman cavalry were beaten consistently. The Battle of Cannae is the battle you were talking about, but in that battle the romans only got surrounded because of Hannibal's cavalry. However, I also think that the section should be expanded, especially about the campaign record of roman empire and not just roman republic. YeT1 rommel (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * However, the records show that the roman cavalry was not consistently beaten, and in fact they were the dominant arm in early rome. Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Roman cavalry in early Republican Rome was the elite branch, but only because only the wealthy equestrian class could afford the horses in the same way that the medieval knight was the dominant force in its respective time. In the Republican period, the Roman legion was nothing more than a levy, militia force, so without doubt the cavalry would be superior. In the late Republican and Empire periods of Rome, it mostly relied on superior auxiliary cavalry to supplement its forces, and not native Italian cavalry. By that time however, the professional legion had become the dominant military force and cavalry was reduced to an aid.  Coincidentally, most of Rome's military conquests happened in that period.
 * I would like to say as well, that even though Sidnell's book Warhorse lists multiple sources, the citations in this article itself list predominantly Sidnell. To better the article, there should be only citations that are direct from its source whenever possible. Artaxus  (talk) 20:02 04/28/10

quote
A question about this quote: "But the "Marian reforms" are a myth invented by modern historians" and the paragraph following it. I am no expert, nor have I read the cited sources, but this goes against everything I have ever heard and directly against what is mentioned in the article on the Marian reforms. Does anybody have any more insight? 124.190.161.80 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Marian reforms
This article contained a significant amount of what was either original research or uncited claims casting doubt on the existence of the Marian Reforms. Since such doubt belongs on the page for the Marian Reforms (where consensus seems to be that they did, in fact, exist), I followed WP:BOLD in cleaning out these unverified assertions. I didn't delete everything because some of it was in fact cited and therefore at least moderately useful, so I reinterpreted it based on what the cited author is claiming was an ongoing process of reform. Afterwards I realized i forgot to log in, but was too lazy to do so before making this comment. Regards, Tormos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.149.164 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing information
This article has a long list of references. But the titles and publication details of the books they were taken from is missing.Graham1973 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

88 BC to 30 BC?
Why does one section claim to represent the history of Roman cavalry up to 88 BC, and then the following section immediately jumps five decades later to 30 BC? Shouldn't we cover everything about Roman cavalry during the very late Republic? How was this omission a logical decision at all? Pericles of Athens Talk 15:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Romans rod pony sized horses
The traditional Roman cavalry rod small-pony sized horses around 14 hands high.

Stirrups
Currently the article says:

Roman cavalry did not have a stirrup. The device was introduced to Europe by invading tribes[which?] after the collapse of the western Roman Empire.[39]

Well, that [which?] is kind of ridiculous because literally no one knows. There are theories but there's no indisputable written or archeological evidence, so it's an unanswerable question. I'm taking it out.2601:602:8800:E1F0:E55B:2741:5D27:427F (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)