Roman phalanx is the most typical and symbolic feature of Roman infantry. For some Luo fen, compared with Roman infantry, the position of cavalry in medieval western Europe was obviously a retrogression. However, existence is reasonable. The prosperity and development of chivalrous spirit obviously has certain inevitability and rationality.

Traditionally, the prosperity of European cavalry in the Middle Ages was related to the spread and development of hard stirrups, saddles and cavalry equipment including armor. But from the time line, the basis of European cavalry prosperity, that is, various economic and social conditions, had arrived long before these cavalry equipment was introduced to Western Europe. So, what caused this phenomenon? Why did Europeans, who mainly like infantry, suddenly become a country of knights?

As early as the beginning of the 3rd century, Rome began to gradually reduce or weaken the military role of the Roman Legion. Some people even think that the name "Legion" was forgotten by people in 450 AD.

This is not because the Roman legion's combat effectiveness has decreased. On the contrary, the Roman Legion, a well-balanced and adaptable military organization, still poses a powerful threat to the battlefield overlord of heavy cavalry even after centuries.

Through strict discipline, training and tacit cooperation, the Roman legion can even defend against the flank raid launched by enemy cavalry at extreme disadvantage and defeat the enemy's offensive by relying on the advantage of morale.

In fact, although we often use "gradual collapse" to describe the decline process of Roman legions in the 3rd-5th century A.D., in the history of Rome's later battles, Roman legions also lacked high-light moments.

In 357 AD, the Roman emperor Julian once defeated the Germanic barbarian army with his legions. Although the Roman legion at this time has a trend of "barbarization". But this army led by Julian undoubtedly still maintains the characteristics of their predecessors. When the Roman cavalry was chased by the German cavalry, this infantry team relied on the reserve team to resist the pressure, and on the opposite side, it resisted the German cavalry in a way of "hair fluttering and hair hanging upside down".

Of course, the Roman legion was able to show such maneuver, and it also benefited from Julian, the apostate, imitating Caesar's preset aloofness. In a word, although the Roman infantry did not win directly, it relied on tenacious resistance to win time for the return of cavalry.

In a sense, even in the Middle Ages when cavalry prevailed, the tactics of the Roman Legion were still not out of date. Take the Eastern Roman Empire as an example. Although East Rome is good at cavalry, its tactical system still relies on infantry as a barrier to help the latter regroup and provide cover.

But the problem is that the Roman Empire at that time could not continue to provide high-quality troops as a supplement to the army as before.

Although historians have given many explanations for the Roman army's supplementary difficulties, such as the gluttony and corruption of the upper nobility, the sequela of caracalla's universal citizenship, and even the decline of currency trade caused by the outflow of silver coins. But one thing can never be ignored: the enthusiasm of Rome, Italy and other Roman provinces for joining the army has indeed gradually decreased with time.

In order to solve this problem, Rome had to hire and recruit barbarians to join the army. Compared with Roman soldiers in the traditional sense, Germanic barbarians undoubtedly have stronger physique and braver character. However, for the army, especially the Roman army, the source of overall combat effectiveness is not these, but systematic cooperation and training.

As mentioned in Leng Yan's previous article, the Germanic barbarians, led by the same clan elders, have a tacit understanding as good as that of the Roman legion. Unfortunately, this tacit understanding was often broken when these barbarians entered the Roman world in smaller communities.

This also led to the decline of the combat effectiveness of heavy infantry, but at the same time the power of cavalry began to appear. As Sun Tzu's Art of War said in the west, cavalry is less dependent on overall cohesion and mutual cooperation than heavy infantry. In the late Roman Empire, the status of cavalry gradually strengthened. At first, cavalry only accounted for 10% to 12% of the Roman army. But by the 5th century, cavalry accounted for as much as a quarter of the Roman army.

After the disintegration of the Roman Empire, many barbarian countries were born on its ruins. Unlike the Romans, who lost their advantages in training, equipment and discipline, the Germanic barbarians relied on clan cohesion and personal courage. Even though it was difficult to compete with the most elite Roman legions, these barbarian soldiers were still extremely powerful at that time.

For Germans, they are obviously more willing to gain wealth and status through sweat. This trend can even be confirmed from linguistics. In Germanic, freemen can also be translated as "buccellarii". At first people thought that the word originated from war, but in the end it was found that its root actually originated from "bread, bucella". The Romans sometimes used this word exclusively to refer to German mercenaries.

In fact, in the Germanic nation, except slaves and serfs at the bottom of society, elders, chiefs and even kings who are above the squire, any school-age Germanic youth can be called a squire. It can be said that all the people are soldiers, which is one of the characteristics of the Germanic ethnic group.

The emphasis on military war is also reflected in all aspects of the Germanic nation. In the kingdom established by the Goths, it is not uncommon for kings to be illiterate. Theodoric, the king of the East Gothic (not the one who died in the battle of Sharon), who is famous for his wisdom, is not only illiterate, but even reprimanded his daughter for her grandson's education, because she actually asked the future monarch to learn to write.

However, this prejudice against knowledge was finally dispelled by the increasingly stable Gothic kingdom. When the Goths settled in Thrace, the original habit of "all the people are soldiers" began to appear outdated. Neither the Goths nor the Franks chose to maintain the huge clan armed forces after the establishment of the regime.

After acquiring more fertile land, the Goths subdivided the original clan of 100 into "ten families". Different from the original system of 100 households, these ten households have formed a smaller social unit. This is not a simple "step-by-step management", but its influence is far-reaching: when the characteristics of common life disappear, the cohesion and cooperation of German soldiers linked by clans also disappear.

Although the clan ties have disappeared, the Germans still maintain the so-called "all the people are soldiers" on the surface. In the Germanic codes such as Ehrlich Code, all subjects in the kingdom still have the responsibility to respond to the king's call and resist foreign enemies. But in fact, it is unlikely that the freedmen group, originally called "squire", will maintain its original military literacy. After the land was divided, the Germans were more farmers than soldiers.

The history of medieval war art quoted several decrees of the Charlemagne era, such as the decrees of Minola, Aachen and Bologna, and believed that all freemen of many nationalities, including Germans and primitive Romans, needed to respond to the call.

Send troops to provide food according to the amount of land allocated. For example, people who own more than 4 Hydes (a Germanic land area unit, it is said that the land that can be enclosed after a piece of animal skin is cut into strips is a Hyde) should go to the battlefield in person. And two people with only two seas get land, one fights, and the other bears most of the trench and equipment costs. As for the freemen with only 1 Hyde or even half Hyde, after several families collect four Hydes, they will choose one person to join the army and the rest will be responsible for the expenses.

According to this standard, the Frankish kingdom at that time could mobilize a considerable number of infantry troops in addition to the elite retainer troops recruited by dukes and earl. But in fact, this reasoning may not be correct. Hans Delbruck, a German strategic thinker, made a brilliant analysis of the feasibility of Charlemagne's imperial edict.

In his view, even the Germanic freemen who owned four units of land were not well-off and well-off households at that time. According to the imperial edict, these soldiers who responded to the call should not only prepare weapons and equipment, but even carry three months' rations and other materials with them. This was almost impossible under the extremely scarce economic conditions at that time.

Therefore, these decrees are not so much conscription laws as evidence of "hidden service tax collection". It was not the former freemen who gradually adapted to farming life who were recruited to the battlefield, but the followers of local lords who did not abandon the characteristics of professional soldiers. At the beginning of the war, the most important job of these former freemen was actually to provide their followers with all kinds of war materials, such as a piece of leather, a piece of cloth, or even a piece of ham or cheese.

For the Frankish kingdom, which inherited most of the original territory of western Rome, it faced conflicts as frequently as its predecessor.

During Charlemagne's reign, the empire was in complete peace for only 1 year. In order to deal with the enemies around him, he obviously needs a strong military force as a support. The war against the Saxons, in particular, posed a severe test to the military strength of this empire.

At that time, the Frankish kingdom, whose strength was far less than that of Teutoburg forest, undoubtedly needed to be more cautious when facing the residents in the same area. But unlike the Romans at that time, the Franks at this time have gradually established a military force with elite cavalry as the core.

Interestingly, among several branches of Germanic race, Franks were the last tribe to master cavalry tactics compared with Goths and Lombards. And until the 5th century, there were few records of armor in its troops.

However, things changed during the reign of Charlemagne. From the king to the duke, the earl, and then to their retinue, they gradually began to fight in the form of cavalry, with armor from scratch and from thin to thick. In the middle of the 6th century, even bishops abandoned robes and crosses and entered the battlefield with helmets and armor.

Compared with the Roman legion, the advantages of cavalry units are extremely obvious. In addition to greater mobility and influence, they also show advantages in supply and logistics. In the past, in order to force the Germanic tribes between the Rhine and Elbe to submit, the Romans sent troops many times.

However, due to the large number of Roman legions, the logistics supply consumption is extremely huge. Even if Rome mobilized at that time, it could only rely on the Lipper River, which meets the Rhine River in the west, as a waterway passage to establish a permanent stronghold in the outpost. But once the Libo River entered the dry season or froze, the Romans had to withdraw their troops and return.

On the contrary, the Frankish army with its own munitions, with cavalry as the main force, can still maintain sufficient combat effectiveness without a small amount of supply line maintenance, and can reach the hinterland of Saxony at any time with Thuringia or Hesse as a springboard, which also gives Charlemagne more strategic choices.

Of course, building an army with elite cavalry as the core also has certain disadvantages. Because the foundation of these armies comes from the system of enfeoffment or fief, the most direct loyal object of cavalry is often its own Lord, not the king. This also led to the descendants of Charlemagne being quickly shelved by disloyal lords, and the medieval Europe as we know it appeared.

But for people at that time, the emergence of this military system was purely helpless. Until the disintegration of the Frankish kingdom, its rulers did not find a way to restore the mobilization of the Roman army. It's not that kings like Charles and Charlemagne are incompetent. The key point is that the node of their grass-roots rule is no longer the original Roman officials.

After the great Germanic migration, "the Roman nobles based on municipal office, wealth and education were replaced by the Germanic nobles who were illiterate and relied on the out-and-out wartime system."

For the Germans and Roman aborigines at that time, in the absence of statistics, planning and coordination, any plan to mobilize them would fail because it was too detailed. On the contrary, under the system of enfeoffment, it is not difficult to communicate among kings, nobles and retinue. In this case, it is obviously more economical and efficient to arm these well-trained brave soldiers.