Pros And Cons Of Numidians

then Hannibal’s use of Numidian cavalry mercenaries should likewise suggest that Carthage had a feeble cavalry that was worthy of disbanding, just like Rome employing auxiliaries from neighboring Italy did. Additionally, Rome employed many non-citizen cavalry prior to Scipio Africanus’ use of the Numidians at the Battle of Zama in the Second Punic War. As mercenaries, compensation motivated temporary loyalty, which shifted easily and often. After Nola, “…272 troopers, Numidians and Spanish, deserted to Marcellus” (Livy, 23.46.7). Thus, on both points, this particular weak argument falls. The stronger argument, that three devastating battles disgraced the shabby Roman cavalry beyond redemption, stands more firmly. “Proponents of the traditional argument have generally assumed
At Cannae, the Roman cavalry did fail at their mission to protect the flanks of the Roman army, losing many soldiers. The cavalry was annihilated: "out of six thousand horse, only seventy escaped with Gaius Terentius to Venusia, and about three hundred of the allied cavalry to various towns in the neighborhood" (Polybius, 3.117). Although the cavalry did perform poorly, and was obliterated, it was not solely at fault. The commanding consuls at Cannae disagreed on the plan, and fell in to a major battle overconfident due to their greater numbers. They might have had more infantry, but the Carthaginians had much more cavalry, an important advantage, which was "a lesson to posterity that in actual war it is better to have half the number of infantry, and the superiority in cavalry" (Polybius, 3.117). This example shows that the citizen cavalry lacked not the necessarily skill or courage, but actual numbers, supporting the idea that increasing cavalry numbers through shifting from citizen to auxiliary would improve the army as a whole. Additionally, one loss