10-30-2008, 11:18 AM
The Romans where adept at using their shields in a cooperative manner, that could give them almost full protection from the angle of attack. If "super arrows" could penetrate this efficiently. Then heavy infantry would have been abandoned and ancient warfare would have consisted purely of archers.
The Parthian horse archers in reality had no great ingress again shielded legionaries. However maintaining the wall of shields even for the trained was a tiring exercise. If the legionaries were already fatigued by hunger, thirst and weariness of the march. Then the shield wall could become ineffective. Disorder and tiredness would open gaps in the wall of protection. And unharassed horse archers could take great advantage of any such gap.
The strength of the Parthian horse archers, was not in armor piecing arrows. But in deadly accurate fire.
Crassus would have had good reason to suppose his troops were quite capable of holding the field against horse archers under normal conditions.
Weariness was the basic cause of the Roman defeat. Phil Barker claimed fear and fatigue can be interchangeable. And it appears the Romans lost the morale fight.
Sallying forth against numerous horse archers with a smaller force, sounds like desperation as well. Desperate moves are not a good thing against mobile cavalry
But why were the horse archers so unharassed? Didn't Crassus have 4,000 or something light troops with him? Did the light troops run out of ammo? Or was there some other failure in their commitment?
However I'll reiterate. Roman legionaries would have little to fear from horse archers under more favorable conditions.
One tactic a horseman can use against a steady shield wall. Is to lasso the shields (or use a grappling hook) and bolt away with the cable secured to the horse (not the rider). Thereby wrenching the shields and hopefully creating sufficient gaps.
I'd say the Parthians picked up on the Romans being fatigued at some point. And then proceeded to take full advantage of this. It was a test of wills that didn't go the Romans way.
The Parthian horse archers in reality had no great ingress again shielded legionaries. However maintaining the wall of shields even for the trained was a tiring exercise. If the legionaries were already fatigued by hunger, thirst and weariness of the march. Then the shield wall could become ineffective. Disorder and tiredness would open gaps in the wall of protection. And unharassed horse archers could take great advantage of any such gap.
The strength of the Parthian horse archers, was not in armor piecing arrows. But in deadly accurate fire.
Crassus would have had good reason to suppose his troops were quite capable of holding the field against horse archers under normal conditions.
Weariness was the basic cause of the Roman defeat. Phil Barker claimed fear and fatigue can be interchangeable. And it appears the Romans lost the morale fight.
Sallying forth against numerous horse archers with a smaller force, sounds like desperation as well. Desperate moves are not a good thing against mobile cavalry
But why were the horse archers so unharassed? Didn't Crassus have 4,000 or something light troops with him? Did the light troops run out of ammo? Or was there some other failure in their commitment?
However I'll reiterate. Roman legionaries would have little to fear from horse archers under more favorable conditions.
One tactic a horseman can use against a steady shield wall. Is to lasso the shields (or use a grappling hook) and bolt away with the cable secured to the horse (not the rider). Thereby wrenching the shields and hopefully creating sufficient gaps.
I'd say the Parthians picked up on the Romans being fatigued at some point. And then proceeded to take full advantage of this. It was a test of wills that didn't go the Romans way.
Steven.
