Was Roman cavalry as useless as commonly believed?

>>1704204
no stirrup cavalry = meme

so yes

>>1704282
I was meaning in comparison to other cavalry during that era

>>1704204

Given the way that Romans tended to wipe out their opponents after a single victory or two, crushing most resistance after a decisive battle, I would guess that they had to at the very least have pursuit capable cavalry. Manipular legions and Marian legions might be tough as balls, but heavy infantry doesn't usually wipe out entire opposing armies the way the Romans seemed to.

Romans were pretty good at using their cavalry in the most common way, i.e.
>fucking up routed enemies
>scouting
>riding ahead/behind and harassing marching columns/baggage trains

They don't seem to have been terribly impressive in actual battle, but that's compared to cultures with a very heavy emphasis on horsemanship. Those three roles are of vastly greater importance than riding up to formed guys or horses in the heat of battle and hitting them on an equal basis.

>>1704204
No. They routinely stalemated or defeated cavalry considered better than them. Roman cavalry was just too few in number to be decisive, and roman cultural values made serious tactical use of cavalry a non starter anyway.

>>1704282
Please, go back and tell that to alexander, his sucessors, the thessalians, the persians, the sassanids, chinese, gauls, iberians, neo- assyrians, germanics, and campanians.

They'll be happy to have your great knowledge to explain how silly their methods of making war are.

>>1704282
The way their saddles were made meant they didnt need stirrups

In the Late Republic and Early Empire there were about 70 foot soldiers to every cavalryman in a Roman legion. Irrespective of the quality of Roman cavalry there wasn't really enough of them to make for any decisive actions in battle.

This changed in the Late Empire, where after Gallienus' experiment with cavalry Vexillationes, cavalry started to make up a greater portion of the army's strength and performed with some distinction.

>>1704204
No, roman cavalry was very good and generally gave excellent account of itself in battle.
The issue is that due to how the roman army was organized, it was always very hard to raise it in any decent number. By the time the army turned to professionalism (which would have solved the numbers problem) Rome had access to cheaper but just as effective (or more effective) cavalry from allied people, so they stopped bothering.

>>1704204
They only became not shit when they started copying Persians. Hence, the Cataphract was born

>>1705809
So they were shit when roman cavalry rekt highly touted thessalian cavalry at Heraclea? When they rekt seleucid cavalry at Magnesia? When they rekt germanic cavalry at Vercellae? When they rekt numidian cavalry at Dertosa?
People only think roman cavarly was shit because of fucking Cannae, where their defeat cost Rome the engagement, but it's hardly significative to be defeated by a force almost twice as large (6k roman cavalry vs 10k carthaginian cavalry).

It's not like Caesar's victory at Alesia was entirely based on flanking with cavalry or anything

They're really OP in Rome Total War so no

>>1704513
Tell me something about riding that I don't know.

>>1704204
That depends entirely on what you call "roman"

During the republic when the roman cavalry were manned by the wealthy, yes it was generally shit when faced with better counter parts.

Then they moved to auxillaries which performed way better.

>>1706336
Belgian auxilia were awesome.

>>1706336
>yes it was generally shit when faced with better counter parts
If that's true how did they manage to wreck the most prominent cavalries of the period, from gauls to germans to numidians to thessalians, etc?
Who were these better counterparts they were shit against?

>>1704204
The cavalry used by the Roman army started poor and was undermanned. The Republican Equestrians were jobbers on horses. However, the improvement of cavalry tactics and equipment, plus the inclusion of auxiliaries gave them decent enough horsemen.

The scheme kinda goes Mediocre Equites -> Good Aux Cav -> Cataphracts & a bit of everything

I'd say Roman Cavalry peaked in the medieval era, but the corruption of the state, the political baggage and inability to renew itself meant that Roman cavalry arm declined too far to be of any use anymore.

The Sipahis of the Durks were too much for them, in the end.