craven.fr

I was reading Cæsar and came across this obscure bit that I would have been completely unable to understand had I not just happened to have read in another book a description of the Roman class system, so I thought I'd pass on the info in the hope that it might someday connect with a confused reader and be helpful.

Ariovistus postulavit 'ne quem peditem ad colloquium Cæsar adduceret: vereri se ne per insidias ab eo circumveniretur; uterque cum equitatu veniret: alià ratione sese non esse venturum.' Cæsar, quòd neque colloquium interpositâ causâ tolli volebat neque salutem suam Gallorum equitatui committere audebat, commodissimum esse statuit omnibus equis Gallis equitibus detractis eò legionarios milites legionis decimæ, cui quàm maximè confidebat, imponere.

(De Bello Gallico, I, XLII). Why does Cæsar have to borrow horses from the Gauls in order to take his legionnaires to the parley? The fascinating thing that one must know in order to comprehend this passage is that the Romans had no mounted cavalry of their own! So Cæsar's army only had Roman footsoldiers, and all the mounted knights were supplied by his Gaulish allies. Which strikes me as so strange, because throughout history knights are always held in higher prestige than footsoldiers—and weirder still, knights were also held in prestige in Rome itself! One of Cæsar's soldiers even jokes about being promoted to knightood:

Quod quum fieret, non irridiculè quidam ex militibus decimæ legionis dixit, 'plus, quàm pollicitus esset, Cæsarem ei facere: pollicitum se in cohortis prætoriæ loco decimam legionem habiturum, nunc ad equum rescribere.'

The equites in Cæsar's time formed the second estate of Roman society, between the lower class populus and the noble, senatorial class. (By this time, the older Republican division between plebians and patricians had ceased to exist—although those rare senatorial families with patracian roots were proud of the fact—most nobles had their roots in the plebs.) To be a knight required great wealth, just as in so many other times in history, since being able to supply a horse and the necessary equipment for mounted warfare to the state was the original prerequisite for the status. In earlier centuries of the Republic, the equites were the Roman cavalry force. Moreover, since the nobility were barred from trade and business, the equites came to be a very powerful class in their own right: they were Rome's economic élite in contrast to the senatorial political élite (whose wealth could only come from inheritence or corruption).

What happened, then, over the course of time, was that knighthood came to be in Rome something completely honorary and status-related. And so the equites rode their horses in parades and other ceremonial occasions, but were not expected to actually fight—not any more than we would expect some one who gets a British knighthood today to ride out in battle!

I find it fascinating that this could take place in a time when actual mounted fighting was still going on, though. (And would continue to be for another 1900+ years.) I had always assumed that Sir Elton John (e.g.) is not expected to ride onto the field of battle today because warfare has evolved away from that kind of thing—but here Cæsar actually has to borrow the horses from his Gaulish allies to give to his legionnaires, because he trusts the latter more with his life! It's amazing that such a military juggernaut as the Roman Empire would have fully entrusted its cavalry—one of the most essential arms of its military force—to outsourcing. And yet that's the way it was.

UPDATE 14.05.2009—I have written a follow-up article to this one that addresses further aspects of the Roman use of cavalry under Cæsar.