03-22-2005, 08:07 AM
At least two errors keep fueling in an annoying way the discussion about roman infantry versus parthians.<br>
<br>
The parthian asian composite bow was NOT a secret weapon. It was well known to the ancient world for a very long time and to the romans in particular thru their eastern activities. The eastern activities started way before Crassus. So the romans knew well the effect of arrows, and the composite bow in particular.<br>
<br>
Another error that fuels some confusion is idea that roman "heavy" infantry armor was supposed to be perfect. Actually roman infantry armor and shield was a wonderful compromise that allowed the legionary to have good protection against random wounds (likely in a tight fight) without making him so heavily loaded as to compromise his mobility. He was more of a medium heavy infantry than truely heavy in the hoplite sense of the word, much less than the medieval knight sense of the word.<br>
<br>
I imagine the composite bow was effective if you got within effect range and could shoot away with ease. The whole idea is to not loose the initiative. Crassus completely lost it once he lost his cavarly, having no standoff weapons (slingers) to keep parthian archers out of range. He became a sitting duck.<br>
Many things went wrong and Crassus must have a made a series of mistakes. The lesson was learned and the romans, with a good mix of slingers, archers, cavalry, could beat parthians and later sassanians. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
The parthian asian composite bow was NOT a secret weapon. It was well known to the ancient world for a very long time and to the romans in particular thru their eastern activities. The eastern activities started way before Crassus. So the romans knew well the effect of arrows, and the composite bow in particular.<br>
<br>
Another error that fuels some confusion is idea that roman "heavy" infantry armor was supposed to be perfect. Actually roman infantry armor and shield was a wonderful compromise that allowed the legionary to have good protection against random wounds (likely in a tight fight) without making him so heavily loaded as to compromise his mobility. He was more of a medium heavy infantry than truely heavy in the hoplite sense of the word, much less than the medieval knight sense of the word.<br>
<br>
I imagine the composite bow was effective if you got within effect range and could shoot away with ease. The whole idea is to not loose the initiative. Crassus completely lost it once he lost his cavarly, having no standoff weapons (slingers) to keep parthian archers out of range. He became a sitting duck.<br>
Many things went wrong and Crassus must have a made a series of mistakes. The lesson was learned and the romans, with a good mix of slingers, archers, cavalry, could beat parthians and later sassanians. <p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
