03-30-2005, 11:02 PM
The Roman cavalry were in a difficult situation. They could not catch the Parthian light horse (and risked being perforated by the "Parthian Shot"). They could chase the horse archers, but the Parthian heavy horse outweighed the Roman horsemen. The Gallic horse had to keep the archers at bay without getting too far from their infantry support.<br>
<br>
This type of maneuver calls for the most delicate timing and superb control of your horsemen. Throughout history, cavalrymen have had trouble stopping a chase against a fleeing foe. The discipline required is comparable to that needed to stage a feigned retreat. I know of no evidence that the Gallic horse had this measure of training.<br>
<br>
I do not think that many Parthian arrows pierced Roman shields and armour. I don't think they had to pierce armour in order to pin down the legions. The Parthian bow easily outranged the pilum, and the horse archer moved much faster than any legionary. So, the archers didn't need to shoot from a galloping horse, indeed the horse could be standing still. Also, a "rain" of arrows isn't needed to pin down soldiers. In the situation at Carrhae, the Parthians could used aimed fire at any exposed (i.e. moving) legionaries. A modern analogy would be an Iraqi sniper pinning down a platoon of soldiers, even when the soldiers have body armour. Factor in the greater range of the bow, and the Romans wouldn't have had much mobility. A "drizzle" of arrows would have sufficed, since both sides knew it could turn into a hailstorm in a matter of seconds.<br>
<br>
(By the by, the Parthians had a lot of arrows. An English longbowman had 24 arrows at his belt, and a nomad quiver would easily have that many. Add a quiver on the horse, and camel loads of reserve arrows, and it is plausible that each of 10,000 Parthians had 100 arrows. A million arrows are likely to do some damage.) <p></p><i></i>
<br>
This type of maneuver calls for the most delicate timing and superb control of your horsemen. Throughout history, cavalrymen have had trouble stopping a chase against a fleeing foe. The discipline required is comparable to that needed to stage a feigned retreat. I know of no evidence that the Gallic horse had this measure of training.<br>
<br>
I do not think that many Parthian arrows pierced Roman shields and armour. I don't think they had to pierce armour in order to pin down the legions. The Parthian bow easily outranged the pilum, and the horse archer moved much faster than any legionary. So, the archers didn't need to shoot from a galloping horse, indeed the horse could be standing still. Also, a "rain" of arrows isn't needed to pin down soldiers. In the situation at Carrhae, the Parthians could used aimed fire at any exposed (i.e. moving) legionaries. A modern analogy would be an Iraqi sniper pinning down a platoon of soldiers, even when the soldiers have body armour. Factor in the greater range of the bow, and the Romans wouldn't have had much mobility. A "drizzle" of arrows would have sufficed, since both sides knew it could turn into a hailstorm in a matter of seconds.<br>
<br>
(By the by, the Parthians had a lot of arrows. An English longbowman had 24 arrows at his belt, and a nomad quiver would easily have that many. Add a quiver on the horse, and camel loads of reserve arrows, and it is plausible that each of 10,000 Parthians had 100 arrows. A million arrows are likely to do some damage.) <p></p><i></i>
Felix Wang
